A U.S. federal judge on Friday declined to restrict immigration enforcement in religious spaces, siding with the Trump administration in a case brought by 27 religious organizations. The lawsuit challenged the administration’s decision to abandon a long-standing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that discouraged immigration enforcement in sensitive locations such as churches and synagogues.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed by President Donald Trump, ruled that the plaintiff organizations lacked legal standing to pursue the case. The court found the allegations of harm were speculative and not backed by sufficient evidence of imminent threat.
The ruling, which opens the door to potential immigration raids at religious gatherings, marks a legal setback for groups arguing that the policy rollback infringed on constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
The plaintiffs included major Christian and Jewish organizations such as the Mennonite Church USA, Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Convención Bautista Hispana de Texas, as well as several individual congregations. Their legal argument centered on claims that the policy reversal violates both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Kelsi Corkran, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said,
“We are currently reviewing the decision and assessing our options. We remain gravely concerned about the impacts of this policy and are committed to protecting foundational rights enshrined in the First Amendment.”
Since 1993, U.S. immigration authorities have observed a policy of avoiding enforcement actions in “sensitive locations” — a category that traditionally included places of worship, schools, and hospitals. In 2021, the Biden administration broadened the policy to also encompass playgrounds, social service centers, and other community spaces.
However, on January 20, 2017 — the day Donald Trump took office — DHS rescinded all existing guidance on sensitive locations. The department explicitly stated there would no longer be any “bright-line rules” regarding enforcement at such sites.
According to the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, at least three enforcement operations have occurred at churches since the policy shift, including one location involved in the legal challenge. Other congregations reported surveillance and increased presence of immigration officers.
The religious organizations requested a preliminary injunction barring DHS and other federal agencies from executing immigration enforcement at their places of worship or during religious ceremonies — unless a judge-authorized warrant or an urgent, exigent circumstance was present.
Judge Friedrich rejected the request, stating that the groups had not demonstrated that religious spaces were being “singled out” for enforcement, and therefore failed to establish a “credible threat.”
Meanwhile, in a separate but related legal battle, five Quaker groups filed a similar lawsuit in Maryland federal court in January. They were later joined by a Sikh temple and a Baptist organization. In that case, the judge granted a preliminary injunction in February, temporarily blocking enforcement actions at those religious sites while litigation is ongoing.
Both the White House and DHS declined to comment on the court’s decision or the future implications of the revived enforcement policy.
As immigration enforcement practices continue to evolve, religious groups across the country are bracing for further legal battles over the rights of undocumented immigrants to seek sanctuary in places of worship without fear of arrest.
